Cheney, Others OK'd Harsh Interrogations

[Neil D]

Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.

Cheney is THE man

[lazarus]

Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War.[36] On January 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial photograph of two U.S soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier participating in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang.photo[37] The article described the practice as "fairly common."[37] The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army.[36][38] Another waterboarding photograph of the same scene is also exhibited in the War Remnants Museum at Ho Chi Minh City.[39]

Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[4][7] politicians, war veterans,[8][9] intelligence officials,[44] military judges,[11] and human rights organizations.[12][13] Arguments have been put forward that it might not be torture in all cases, or that they are uncertain.[45][46][47][48] The U.S. State Department has recognized that other techniques that involve submersion of the head of the subject during interrogation would qualify as torture.[49]

The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-fifth Session of November 2006, stated that state parties should rescind any interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#World_War_II

[Dr. Shane]

Like it or not, no law was broken, I don't like water-boarding but I am glad my government didn't break the law to do it.

McCain Detainee Amendment

Quote:

The Act generally prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees by any person, but only military interrogators are restrained to the specific guidelines of the Army's Field Manual on interrogation -- the Central Intelligence Agency was not. In an effort to close this loophole, Congress passed legislation to similarly constrain the CIA to the Field Manual's techniques. [5] McCain voted against this bill and recommended that President Bush follow through on his threat to veto it, arguing that the CIA already could not engage in torture but should have more options than afforded military interrogators. [6] The bill did not pass with sufficient votes to override an executive veto.

[fccool]

. Shane, I think you would have spoken differently if you were on the board as a suspect.

PS. It's also not against the law to lie, and to cheat on your wife. I'm sure you do not support these. Just because torture is not against the law... it does not make it any less morally wrong.

[Dr. Shane]

No, I think I would still say, "I don't like water-boarding"

[fccool]

So, you don't like it... but it's OK?

[Dr. Shane]

What does "OK" mean? Legal? Ethical? Moral? I don't like it and it is not OK with me. But I am not a governing authority.

[John317]

Do you believe the only way we should try to get information out of the terrorists is to ask, "Please tell us whether your terrorist friends are planning to kill hundreds or thousands more"? Or, "Would you like to let us in on any of your secrets of who all was involved in killing the 3,000 Americans"?

If they say they don't want to talk, what do you believe should be done?

Is there anything that you would say is OK to do in order to extract the information we need to save lives? What tactics would be legal and ethical in your mind to save the life of your child?

[fccool]

Got it.

[fccool]

That's the problem John. It's one thing to interrogate and waterboard actual terrorists. It's quite different when you have terrorist SUSPECTS walking out damaged for life. I don't think "oops we were wrong" kind of makes up for it. Are we to sacrifice these individuals for the greater good of all? Plus, it kind of questionable the things that you extract from people under torture. Did they say those because they had knowledge, or because they want the torture to stop. I hear what you are saying, but it's a slippery slope.

[John317]

Yes, I can see your point.

But now let's say that we have a person who we know has information that would save lives if only he would tell us. Let's say the time comes when we know that the terrorists are planning to detonate a nuclear device or dirty bomb in a major city. Millions will be killed. We need to know information that this man has, and he is refusing to talk. What do we do? Is it ethical to let millions of people die when we could use waterboarding to get the information that would save all those people? Or is it more ethical to give the terrorist a chicken sandwich and pat him on the back and assure him that we will not violate his rights even if it kills every last American to do it?

What would you think if the day after a nuclear bomb destroys the whole of New York City, the news announces that the US could have saved all those people, except that the government decided to protect the rights of a terrorist to remain silent? Would your response be, "Well, that's a big relief. At least that terrorist's rights were protected. Looks like our government finally has its priorities straight" ?

[fccool]

Again,

If You know FOR SURE that the guy does have information and there is a nuke missing somewhere... then it's a different story. Is not something that you can just carry through in a briefcase without some governments knowledge. These are under strict supervision and don't just go missing. All of these are prevented from detonating accidentally, and need very thorough activation procedures to work. It is highly unlikely for rogue terrorists to acquire nuklear weapons. If it was probable, then in would have been done. Governments love to scare ordinary people with these bogus threats. Only governments posses nuklear capability. So, if a nuke goes off somewhere...you can be sure that someone's government is behind it, and not rogue terrorist group.

But, coming back to the question of torture for the good of all. I can see rational of torture in the case you've described. But this case is VERY unlikely. So, what happens in reality, people get captured because they look suspicious... and tortured into admitting that they are terrorists.

Many times dissidents are mistaken for terrorists. It's very common. As I've said... it's a slippery slope.

[Bravus]

No points to be made on this one - right-wingers like and support torture. Nothing to see here folks, business as usual, move along.

The only useful speech on this issue is your vote.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

right-wingers like and support torture.

I think that is an unfair characterization. Many communist regimes have been the biggest users of torture and I wouldn't label them right-wingers. Water-boarding is a horrible practice but compared to tactics used by the communist North Vietnamese against the US troops, it is rather mild. Communists would pull arms out of joint, electrocute prisoners, shove bamboo shoots up under fingernails and insert and break glass tubes inside a man's penis. I don't think torture is confined to any single ideology.

[Bravus]

All true. But I was talking in terms of modern America, not the whole of history. And I was just noting that those on the left binrg up points like 'Cheney OK'd harsh treatment', horrified, and those on the right keep saying 'Well, it's what's necessary in the war on terror, good on him, bring it on'. There's no point in the conversation, since the underlying assumptions about what is morally right are different. Until those on the right embrace 'no torture, never ever, under any circumstances', there's not point revealing their heroes' use of torture, because all they'll do is applaud it.

[John317]

No points to be made on this one - right-wingers like and support torture. Nothing to see here folks, business as usual, move along.

The only useful speech on this issue is your vote.

Not true. If you study history, you will find that millions of people have been tortured and killed in horrible ways by left-wingers. It has nothing to do with whether a person is on the right or left of the political spectrum.

No one is talking about "liking" torture. We're talking about Americans who believe that it is sometimes necessary to use certain tactics that many consider "torture" to extract important information from terrorists or suspected terrorists. I have never heard of the CIA using waterboarding on merely suspected terrorists, at least in the case of 9/11. I think they only used it on people they knew were involved in it, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. As I understand it, they got information from him that helped save lives.

I wouldn't be in favor of their using such techniques against people merely on the basis of someone's opinion that they may be a terrorist.

By the way, has anyone been following the current trial underway of a number of Muslims who were conspiring to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic ocean a few years ago?

[Bravus]

Read my second post above, John.

I'm off to church now, but will be back to talk about the hypothetical cases used to make the case for torture.

[fccool]

Quote:

right-wingers like and support torture.

I think that is an unfair characterization. Many communist regimes have been the biggest users of torture and I wouldn't label them right-wingers. Water-boarding is a horrible practice but compared to tactics used by the communist North Vietnamese against the US troops, it is rather mild. Communists would pull arms out of joint, electrocute prisoners, shove bamboo shoots up under fingernails and insert and break glass tubes inside a man's penis. I don't think torture is confined to any single ideology.

Yep, quite right. And that's where we get the idea of outsourcing these activities to save face.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10996623/

Although I would have to admit that imagining of a glass tube shattering inside an organ did leave an emotional scar. But it can hardly compare to poring led in people's throats, or puncturing the stomach and winding out the intestines (inquisition)... or feeling bamboo growing through your rectum... or rat eating its way through your stomach

I'd like to believe that I can endure these without rejecting Christ, but I sure hope that it will not come to that. The mentality of torturing "terrorists" is the one that is based on fear. Not to say that we should not protect ourselves, but when do you stop, and can you really protect yourself from an extremists in the world where explosive substances such as gasoline are available just about anywhere? Torturing those people is like pouring oil in fire. It will bring more to their already overflowing ranks. These are people first, and they do have names, faces and children... just like we do.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I was talking in terms of modern America

I think what we see in modern America is just partisanship. If Al Gore Jr. had won in 2000 and been President on 9/11 I have no doubt we would have went to war just the same. I don't think he would have drug his feet through the UN as long as Bush did. And it would now be the Right criticizing the Left for torture techniques such as water-boarding.

[fccool]

Shane, I highly doubt that. He might have retaliated against Afghanistan, but he would not have gone into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. I think that we have to note that Bush Jr, is a son of Bush sr, and their ideologies are identical. I would even go as far as saying that Bush was elected based on memory of his father and hardly because of his own political achievement, which were very few. The war with Iraq was a political move, and without 9/11 and the war he would be a laughable president who has trouble articulating his thoughts. What other great things should Bush Jr. be remembered for? No child left behind, and his education policies for "childrens"? I think he would be a better president if just stopped trying to improve the world to his likings. Both parties are far from the ideals established in 1787. The best government is which governs less.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Shane, I highly doubt that. He might have retaliated against Afghanistan, but he would not have gone into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. I think that we have to note that Bush Jr, is a son of Bush sr, and their ideologies are identical.

Totally agree... and we would be arguing over other things...and the insurgency would be in Afghanistan and many politcal players would be so different.

Quote:

The war with Iraq was a political move, and without 9/11 and the war he would be a laughable president who has trouble articulating his thoughts. What other great things should Bush Jr. be remembered for?

Indeed! He might not have even made a 2nd term....But as a friend used to say, " Hindsight is always 20/20."

[Dr. Shane]

Sorry, I don't know who Bush Jr. is. I know who George Herbert Walker Bush is. I also know who George Walker Bush is. Neither of them have a junior named after them. Not too sure who that junior guy is.

Anyway... about Al Gore Jr. He was banging the war drums to pass the 1998 Iraqi Freedom Act. He is a political opportunist. That means he does what is politically popular to do. A fine example is his George-Bush-is-my-Commander-in-Chief speech given just after 9-11.

Here are a few quotes from Al Gore Jr.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." (9/23/02)

"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table." (2/13/02)

“We have maintained the sanctions. I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Some say they’re too weak to do it. But that’s what they said about those opposing Milosevic in Serbia.” (2000 debate with Bush)

From 1992:

“it was an Iraq-based group that masterminded the assassination attempt against Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom”

“the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille-Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance“

“the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs”

“[saddam Hussein] was not only promoting terrorism, but was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program“

“Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987 killing 37 sailors”

“Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible, and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly”

“Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children”

There is no doubt in my mind. One has to be naive to believe Al Gore Jr. would have somehow done everything differently. I don't live in that world.

[fccool]

Shane, I did not vote so I do have right to complain . Could have, should have, would have... I am not pro Al Gore either. And you are right about him being opportunist. But I think that being idealist is even more dangerous at times. Let C.S. Lewis pointed out:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[Bravus]

"What would Gore have done?" is a complete red herring and irrelevant to this argument. I'm not sure the graphic catalogues of particular torture techniques here are useful either - all they show is that humans can get very inventive when it comes to causing anguish to their fellow man. The argument 'our tortures are less gruesome to imagine and don't leave a mark' is hardly a moral argument.

Let me return to the 'if we knew a terrorist knew where the ticking atomic bomb was' argument. This is a perfect example of 'extreme cases make bad law'. It's a vanishingly unlikely scenario, and using it to argue for the quite general authorisation of harsh treatment is dishonest and illogical. What is happening is that this entirely fictional scenario is used to put real human beings on real boards where they are half-drowned, repeatedly, and made to fear for their lives.

Here's what *should* be the situation. Torture and harsh treatment are morally wrong, everywhere, all the time, no matter who perpetrates them. They should be absolutely outlawed.

Now, blowing up an atomic bomb in a city is also morally wrong. In an extreme situation like that, an interogator may believe that it is necessary to use torture, and may in fact save lives. What should then happen is that, because torture is illegal, that interogator would face a court martial. He or she would be exhonerated, based on the extreme situation in this particular case. But torture would have remained as something that is extreme and rare, and the interogator would have had to weigh the choice to use it extremely carefully, including risking his own career. That sounds harsh, but it is the only really moral way to think about torture.

America used to be a shining beacon of freedom and humanitarian example for the rest of the world. The unedifying spectacle of America's leaders splitting hairs about what does and doesn't constitute torture, and loudly proclaiming 'we don't torture!' while authorising harsh treatment that is called torture if anyone does it, as well as outsourcign torture, has forever harmed that role as a beacon.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

"What would Gore have done?" is a complete red herring and irrelevant to this argument.

It is not irrelevant when someone claims that the right-wing likes torture. It is highly likely that had Gore been president the same thing would be going on. The same military and CIA officials would have been holding the same offices. It is highly unlikely that Gore in the White House would have made the difference. The difference would be that the right-wing would be attacking the left-wing for allowing torture rather than the other way around.

Yes torture is wrong and always should be illegal. All presidential candidates running for office believe that. It is kind of hard for anyone to say McCain believes in torture when he can't raise his elbows above his shoulders because of all the times they were disjointed while he was a POW. If we want to make sure that torture stops McCain seems like the best candidate running that will do exactly that.